Appeals to the Privy Council from the
Caribbean and Canadian Colonies
Report No. JAM_1742_06

Mansfield v Concanen

Gray v Bontein

Jamaica 

 

Case Name Long

Capt. Thomas Mansfield (revived by his widow Katherine), on behalf of himself and of George Fitzgerald and other owners of the Kings Meadow v Mathew Concanen, Advocate General of Jamaica, and Thomas Bontein, naval officer there

 
Case Name Long

John Gray and Benjamin Maynard (later Gray alone) v Thomas Bontein

 
 

Acts of the Privy Council, Colonial Series

view_APC

APC Citation  

v.3 [533] p.713–717 (2 Feb. 1742 – 11 Jan. 1749)

 
  PC Register Citation

George II v.8 (22 Oct. 1741 – 29 Sept. 1743) p.72–73, 91, 236, 248–249, 276–277, 277, 310–311: PC 2/97/72–73, 91, 236, 248–249, 276–277, 277, 310–311

view

  PC Register Citation

George II v.9 (1 Oct. 1743 – 27 Feb. 1745) p.169: PC 2/98/169

view

  PC Register Citation

George II v.10 (1 March 1745 – 31 July 1746) p.109–110: PC 2/99/109–110

view

  PC Register Citation

George II v.12 (1 May 1748 – 29 March 1750) p.18, 33, 62–64, 75, 123–125, 137: PC 2/101/18, 33, 62–64, 75, 123–125, 137

view

 

Colonial Courts

 
 

Vice Admiralty Court – 23 Sept. 1741 (Mansfield v Concanen)

 
 

Supreme Court – undated (Gray v Bontein)

 
 

Court of Errors – 6 May 1743 (Gray v Bontein)

 

Participants

Bontein, Thomas (al. Archibald), deputy naval officer, respondent

 

Concanen, Mathew, advocate general, respondent

 

Egan, James, merchant, of London

 

Fitzgerald, George, merchant, of London, owner, with others, of the King's Meadow, appellant

 

Gray, John, merchant, of Port Royal, appellant

 

Hayden, James, merchant, of London

 

Mansfield, Katherine, respondent (widow of Capt. Thomas)

 

Mansfield, Capt. Thomas, master or commander of the Kings Meadow, appellant, later deceased (husband of Katherine)

 

Maynard, Benjamin, merchant, of Port Royal, appellant, later deceased

 

Reynolds, William, merchant, of London

 

Trelawny (Trelawney), Edward, esquire, governor of Jamaica (cousin of William)

 
 

Vessels

 
 

Kings (King’s) Meadow, formerly Cork Galley, disguised as the Young Catherine (ship)

 

Description

Seizure and condemnation.

Disposition

Vice Admiralty sentence reversed; Court of Errors and Supreme Court sentences set aside, with opportunity for a new trial.

Notes

Related to other Privy Council appeals:

Bradley v Bontein – Report No. JAM_1743_02 (APC, v.3 [566] p.747–748)

Bennett v Bontein – Report No. JAM_1743_03 (APC, v.3 [567] p.748)

Bontein v Trelawny – Report No. JAM_1753_02 (APC, v.4 [218] p.223).

Not indexed as an appeal by the APC, but instead as an issue of Vice Admiralty jurisdiction. See the documentation of the printed cases and Additional Research.

 

References in Smith, Appeals to the Privy Council from the American Plantations

Table of Cases (Mansfield v Bontein)


DOCUMENTATION

Printed Cases

Appellant’s case

Case of the appellant (Catherine Mansfield v Thomas Bontein)
Case of the Commissioners for Victualing His Majesty’s Navy, relating to several large quantities of wine and brandy . . . , with an Appendix: “Being an Abstract of Several Acts of Trade and Navigation; and Copy of His Majesty’s Order in Council of the 24th December 1740”

Counsel

D. Ryder; W. Murray
D. Ryder; W. Murray

 
Note

It is unclear whether the Appendix belongs with the Commissioners’ printed case or with that of the Respondents, as the person who arranged the pamphlets in their current volume seems to suggest. It is signed by one Temple Stanyan, who does not seem to have been of counsel to anyone in the case. Perhaps it might be analogized to the modern joint appendix, because the text of the Navigation Acts and of the Order in Council are relevant to both cases.

 
Library

New York Public Library: (Ford Collection: Prize Appeals, vol. 1, King’s Meadow, fol. 23r–24v) Schwarzman Building: Rare Book Collection *KC+++ p.v.20 (Mansfield v Bontein. Printed date on dorse 1748. No contemporary manuscript notes.)

view

Library

New York Public Library: (Ford Collection: Prize Appeals, vol. 1, King’s Meadow, fol. 25r–26v) Schwarzman Building: Rare Book Collection *KC+++ p.v.20 (Commissioners Case. Printed date on dorse 1748. No contemporary manuscript notes.)

view

Library

New York Public Library: (Ford Collection: Prize Appeals, vol. 1, King’s Meadow, fol. 33r–33v) Schwarzman Building: Rare Book Collection *KC+++ p.v.20 (Appendix. No date on dorse. No contemporary manuscript notes.)

view

Respondent’s case

Case of the respondents (Edward Trelawney and Thomas Bontein)

Counsel

Wm. Noel; A. Hume-Campbell

 
Note

For the cases involved here, see Additional Research.

 
Library

New York Public Library: (Ford Collection: Prize Appeals, vol. 1, King’s Meadow, fol. 27r–32v) Schwarzman Building: Rare Book Collection *KC+++ p.v.20 (Printed/manuscript date on dorse 12 May 1748. Contemporary manuscript note on dorse.)

view

 

Privy Council Documents in PC 1 at The National Archives at Kew

 

Not found


ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

The complexities of these cases and of the two closely related cases, Bradley v Bontein (JAM_1743_02) and Bennett v Bontein (JAM_1743_03), are considerable, but the underlying issue is clear enough. On 24 Dec. 1740, the Privy Council issued an order exempting from the Navigation Acts imports of provisions for the fleet and forces in Jamaica. (For the maneuverings within the government with regard to this order, in which Archibald Bontein and Governor Trelawney are mentioned, see APC v.3 [490].) Bontein, the deputy naval officer in Jamaica, apparently with backing from Mathew Concanen, the advocate-general of Jamaica, and Governor Trelawney, seems to have taken the position that only an act of parliament could override another act of parliament. In any case, Bontein seized three ships, the King’s Meadow (Mansfield v Concanen), the Dolphin (Bradley v Bontein), and the Mercury (Bennett v Bontein), all of which, their owners subsequently alleged, were carrying provisions for the fleet. John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, merchants of the notorious Port Royal in Jamaica, claimed, as agents of the Commissioners for the Victualling of His Majesty’s Navy, possession of the cargo of the ships, which Bontein had also seized. Bontein was supported by the courts in Jamaica; and the owners, and Gray and Maynard, took their appeals to the Privy Council.

In the meantime (on 2 Feb. 1742), the commissioners had filed with the Privy Council what are called memoranda, which later were reformulated as a petition or a complaint to the Council, in which they outlined the legal position apparently taken by Bontein and asked whether they should seek redress in parliament or whether the Privy Council should order Bontein to desist. The Council did neither, but referred the matter to “the Duke of Newcastles office from whence the said Papers came,” a reference, presumably, to Newcastle in his capacity as Secretary of State.

Once the appeals arrived, the Privy Council could not ignore them, though the record raises the question of whether the jurisdiction actually lay in the Admiralty. Eventually (in 1748), the Committee heard all the appeals, with results quite favorable to the appellants, as indicated in the reports of the cases.

The clearest indication of what the cases, and who the parties, were is found in the style of the printed case of respondents:

Thomas Mansfield, late Master or Commander of the Ship King’s Meadow, alias the Cork Galley, alias the Young Catharine, alias Lamosa Catalina, in Behalf of Himself and of George Fitzgerald of London, Merchant, and others, Owners of the said Ship } Appellant. His Majestys Advocate-General of the Island of Jamaica [Mathew Concanen], and Thomas Bontein Esquire, Naval-Officer of the said Island } Respondents.

John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, Agents to the Commissioners for Victualling his Majestys Forces and Navy in America, in an action of Trover touching the above Ships } Plaintiffs in Error and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well for his Majesty, and his Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, Governor of the said Island, as for himself in this Behalf, prosecutes } Defendant in Error, and Respondent.

Henry Bradley, late Master of the Ship Dolphin, and the said John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, } Plaintiffs in Error, and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well, &c. } Defendant in Error and Respondent.

John Bennett, late Master of the Ship Mercury, and the said John Gray and Benjamin Maynard, } Plaintiffs in Error, and Appellants. The said Thomas Bontein, who as well, &c. } Defendant in Error and Respondent.

Stephen Bisse, Thomas Revell, Thomas Brerton, William Thompson, William Hay, Thomas Tresusis, and Richard Hall, Esquires, Commissioners for Victualling his Majestys Navy } Petitioners and Complainants. His Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, and the said Thomas Bontein } Respondents. [This following entry is in much larger type:]

The CASE of his Excellency Edward Trelawney, Esquire, one of the Respondents to the last-mentioned Petition; and of his Majestys Advocate-General of the said Island of Jamaica, one of the Respondents to the first-mentioned Appeal, and of Thomas Bontein, Esquire, Respondent to the said Petition, and to all the above-mentioned Appeals.

It will be noted that the actions involving the ships under the Navigation Acts were qui tam actions. Bontein and Trelawney were not simply doing their duty as they understood it. The final case before the Privy Council about this matter, Bontein v Trelawney (JAM_1753_02), deals with the settling of accounts between the two, the details of which need not concern us here.

CD